Question: Filing Charges?
 

I have a question for the more educated of the FlyerTalk community. The next time I fly, I will consent to the metal detector, a swab, and a back of the hand pat down. However, I will not consent to an open hand "grope" and, if pressed, will ask for the GSC (or a CO employee) and LEO to be present due to the following phrase I intend to use: "I do not consent to the unreasonable search of my private parts, and if these are touched without my permission, I will file sexual assault charges". So my question is: Has this been attempted? If so, could you provide a link? If not, will it carry any water?

Additionally, I'd like to thank the TS/S community in helping formulate the letter I am composing for the following recipients: Senators, Congressman, US AG, TX AG, UAL Execs, DHS Admins, TSA Admins, ACLU, and Major News Outlets.

Thanks for your help.

At that point you will probably get the infamous "do you want to fly today"

I'm okay with that. I generally try to fly out the day before meetings and allow plenty of time at the airport. What I need to work on is saying the bare minimum to both the TSOs and LEOs.

I also plan on utilizing this:
http://www.aclu.org/technology-and-l...n-search-abuse

Good for you Hed and welcome to the forum. I'm pretty new myself but the issues we are fighting for are the basis for the continued freedom of Americans and will hopefully set a precedence for other countries in the world that repeatedly crush the civil liberties of law abiding Americans.

We are a determined bunch and we will not give in to pressure. Opt out always, be vocal, do not be embarassed by your willingness to stand up for yourself and what you believe in.

Sadly, you have bought into the fear spread around this web site. The pat-down you will receive will use back of the gand on your sensitive areas, front if the hand on your legs, back, arms, etc. So you will my have a chance to protest.

However, let say "cause" is established to give you the mire invasive pat-down, well good luck fighting that - read carefully what I say, if there is cause, then good luck to you. ;)

You cannot file charges because you want to. There are elements of a crime that are not present when you are subjected to a security patdown.

You Do Not know what the HELL you are talking about.

Well, let's look at the California law on sexual battery. Are the elements all there? Might be a longshot.

http://law.onecle.com/california/penal/243.4.html

Is that qualified legal advice eyecue?

Yeah I do!

It is exremely difficult to prosecute or SUE any of TSA officials that are performing their assigned duty.

How do we know they are doing their duty, and not going rogue on a power trip to punish opt-outers? Please share with us the written protocols that define what should happen so we know when we've been legally molested vs illegally molested.......

Why are your replies so unhelpful, subtextually saying "I know something you don't know!"

The more invasive alarm resolution frisk can be triggered by legitimate trace explosives. Military EOD personnel come to mind. Thankfully, you're not a lead or supervisor, so you won't be stroking people's penises for the alarm resolution pat-down. You are paid to serve the public, and enjoy taunting the very public that puts food on your table.

Aren't you a former cop? Maybe you weren't paying attention when the limits of qualified immunity were covered. Bivens actions can be brought for constitutional torts.

I don't even know what to say.

When did you graduate law school?

What kind of person, aside from qualified medical personnel, would WANT a job where part of their duties are to grope the genitals of strangers?

I know it has been brain washed into the psych of TSC's to convince them to do dirty and illegal things, that they can not be prosecuted or held accountable as long as they are "following SOP" but I can't wait for just 1 of them to go to jail for "following SOP" because at that point all the other TSC's will refuse to do the dirty and illegal things for fear of going to jail, and maybe just maybe we'll get a few of our constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties back

We have 63,000 sex offender registrants in California. Surely one of them might have an interest.

:rolleyes: You will respect my authoritah!

Well, let's help them find some new TSO's. Here are the sex offenders in the same zip code as LAX.

We could send them some used pizza boxes, with ads.

Or gas pump ad's

I am telling you its only a matter of time before they start recruiting straight from the half-way houses and prison/jail "trustee's"

Do you have any reason for saying this, other than being wrong?

The citation to the elements of the offense are relevant. And, as an individual, you can't file charges against anyone. You *can* arrest them. But you *can't* file charges. So, after you arrest them, you need to persuade a prosecutor (title varies depending on jurisdiction, etc.) to file charges. As much as I think this entire "security" scare is stupid, I am afraid that making a criminal arrest (on these particular grounds) is not likely to succeed.

Two words: Civil Suit

Your time and money.

Actually I believe SATTSO told us in another thread that he was now a Lead TSO.

So he is one of the ones doing the stroking.

But if you're willing to spend a few years in jail for the cause, it's quite easy to beat a grapist TSO like a red-headed step-child.

And in this political climate, the government might discover that their usual habit of stacking the jury in their favor won't be effective.

Idea for new tagline: "Have you made a TSO cry today?"

This has been discussed before (indeed multiple times before). What eyecue is standing behind is that some sort of intent for sexual gratification is a required element of most sex crimes. Although that's true, I pointed out a while ago that there are numerous examples of people being prosecuted for sex crimes (mostly involving being nude) that have similar intent requirements where there's no evidence of intent present. Because intent is basically in somebody's head, it can't be proven either way and is often assumed.

On the other hand, it is certainly true that the precise definition of sexual assault and/or sexual battery very much differ from state to state and are quite often not what you think they are. If you're going this route, it's critical to know the exact statute and how the terms in it have been interpreted by case law.

But if every element of the crime other than intent is met, I certainly think it reasonable to press charges.

I think I understand you points. Wouldn't intent be largely the victims perception of what events transpired if charges were being contemplated?

Proving that intent in a court would be a whole different matter.

There is an interesting read over at Legal Match about what requirements need to be met for a TSA patdown to be considered inappropriate. Granted the information is outdated based on the new patdowns as to the specifics (for example, some stations no longer use hand held wands), but in general it pretty much comes down to this:

When Does a Pat-Down Become Inappropriate?

A pat-down becomes inappropriate whenever the TSA's guidelines are not followed.

I'm not saying it's right and I'm not saying it's wrong, but if they are following their guidelines, and you consent to the search as they outline each step and allow them to do so, I think there's little chance of a suit working out in your favor. They won't let you through if you don't consent, which is another issue, but they do give you the option to opt out of it all.

I more limited approach which won't cost you a dime, is to file a sexual harassment grievance against the screener. recently, the DHS IG made the TSA come up with a sexual harassment program because they never bothered to create one (We're a young agency after all.).

A sexual harassment grievance is an administrative action which causes the TSA to investigate the claim in a similar fashion to a sexual assault charge. The individual most likely can't go to jail but can be administratively punished. There was a thread about the TSA's sexual harassment program here on FT. As is the case with most government agencies, the parameters for being accused of sexual harassment are pretty broad and goes way beyond a male employee hitting on a female employee. You will make it nearly as on the employee and his management as a criminal charge without all the muss & fuss of trying to get a screener arrested.

The easiest way to do this is through the DHS IG hotline. I've posted how to do this in the past and don't have time to provide the link right now.

The problem is you can't just leave the security area and not fly. You basically have only three choices:
1. Get your skin irradiated from the backscatter machine.
2. Get molested.
3. Get "escorted" out by a pissed-off police officer.

If choice #3 were simply, "Collect your stuff, leave the security area and don't fly today," I'd be happy with it.

Which is exactly why the TSA guidelines are SSI.

Oddly enough what you post supports what eyecue said.

Do I upset you? Awwww. I'm sure you will get over it. And you know very well I can not say certain things. All i can say is there must be cause to do the more invasive pat-down. :)

How can informed consent be obtained when the procedure is secret?

You think that's the only profession - qualified medical - where the genitalia have to be patted down? Really? I have mnow many others - none TSA employees - who have had to do as such in their profession, including federal LEOs. But I guess FBI agents, military personal, etc., are all perverts?

Bolding Above is Mine

I don't even think it's a long shot -- it just doesn't meet the criteria as defined under CA 243.4 PC, IMHO.

The way I read it four things must occur:

First you need the battery;
Secondly the victim needs to be unlawfully restrained;
Third it must be against the will of the person;
Forth, and last, it must be for sexual gratification of the perp.

During an enhanced pat down, based on accounts of others who have been thru the procedure, it could be said the touching occurs -- it could also be said it is against the will of the person, but the passenger is not unlawfully restrained and last, I sincerely doubt your average TSO is doing it for sexual gratification.

I do believe the enhanced patdown using the front of the hand goes too for passenger screening. IMHO, it goes beyond the scope of a minimally invasive Administrative Search for WEI when other, less invasive technologies exist -- specifically ETD.

The TSA is a bloated, make-work government agency; it's time to reign in big government. After the first of the year I'll be able to write my new senator on the issue (Rand Paul, R-KY) -- I can't say that I see eye to eye with the new Senator from Kentucky, but it'll certainly be interesting to see where Paul stands on this.

No, intent can't be presumed by the victim's perception (consider a nude sunbather being reported by a religious zealot). Most cases just assume away intent and view it as "proven" if the other elements of the crime are present. But, to the extent that it is considered, I think it's purely for the jury to determine based on the totality of the facts.

Perhaps some of the resident attorneys can comment on this, but this is a tricky issue. On the one hand, the required standard for conviction is that every element of the crime needs to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt, but on the other, "intent" is purely in somebody's head and can't be proven to any standard.

When you say "more invasive", do you mean here the procedure you've spoken about which cannot be performed by a TSO and must be performed in public or one of the more common pat-downs, but the more invasive of the set? I think the lack of specificity here is causing a lot of confusion.

The regular pat-down is performed in public, and can be performed by a TSO.

The one I mention - performed only for cause - can not be performed by a TSO, nor are TSOs trained in that procedure - and is to be performed in private. This is the one that has people up in arms, though it is very very rare. Almost all of you will neve experience this, or if so it will take years, I would guess.

There are only 2 pat-downs, both I just mentioned, obviously.

After all, they will invoke the Nuremberg defense.

No actually it's not.

It's the one everybody has seen countless times on the news that's done in front of anybody that you get if you refuse the scanner that has people up in arms.

If anything but a very few of the people up in arms even knew of the other procedure, they would be rioting.

As far as i can tell, actually it is. I've seen news clips on it, I've read numerous print stories, all either showing the front of the hand being used, or writing about the front of the hand being used. And all incorrect. On fact, some people on this site have specifically said they saw news stories showing the front of the hand being used. So I will stand by what I said.

Since you claim to have information and seem willing to share it:

What is this s3kr3t, in private only procedure?

If TSOs can not administer it then who can?

What is the procedure that the TSA is calling enhanced patdowns?

Thanks in advance for your reply.